Remember the CEO who price gouged the HIV drugs? Well, now he's getting exposed

[ClosedCaption]

And you suppose the reason the /other/ companies didn't put out the life saving drug because of another reason?

I dont understand what you are saying. Try making a point instead of dancing around it by putting it in the form of a question.

 

[Silhouette]

Funny, just HE of all scoundrels got arrested for being a good capitalist. Anyone seeing a trend?

you say he was a GOOD capitalist?
in what way do you see him as a GOOD capitalist?

In the way of the extreme interpretation of the word. Anyone with a patent (temporary monopoly) seeks to maximize that monopoly while they can. I'm not ethically in support of price gouging; plus it's lethal to your business anyway. Someone will come along and undercut you and *whoosh* your little racket disappears overnight.

As you know, my point is that of all the "good capitalists", this man was singled out and hauled off to jail...

 

[EverCurious]

And you suppose the reason the /other/ companies didn't put out the life saving drug because of another reason?

I dont understand what you are saying. Try making a point instead of dancing around it by putting it in the form of a question.

You missed my point. The media is going off on this guy for greed in raising the prices, yet they say nothing of the companies whom sat on the drug since the 50's - and why did those companies sit on it? Greed. It was non-profitable. To single out this guy isn't fully addressing the issue - but that's the point these days, slow news day, find someone to destroy, ignoring key facts that don't fit the agenda they push. I dislike the media very much...

However, my point is, this guy is not really any more guilty than those who sat on it because it wasn't profitable in the context of "oh how evil to jack up the price of a live saving drug." What about "oh how evil to sit on a life saving drug because it's not profitable"? Why does the act of sitting on a life saving drug get no blowback, but actually bringing it out does? It's a bit... idk... hypocritical in a way. The "hand wringing" is because the drug is "live saving" and thus implied to be a "necessity" - yet the reality is, according to pharma, "there's not enough interest in the drug" ... if there was interest in the drug then pharma would have put it out - there's money to be made for something sitting on the shelf. But there's not enough interest so they sat on it, but the media plays it off as 'needed' in society /now/ vs any other time since the 50s...

IF one is going to be upset about something, then why be selective about it? Why not scream at pharma who jacks the prices on shit all over the place at the same time? Why /only/ be angry at this guy? Because he's a CEO and that plays into the hatred of capitalism, pharma is somehow immune to such anger even though they are just as greedy and "uncaring" for those who need the drug. I just find the whole thing one sided.